Contractor_Question_Recompete_2010_ 3_June_2010.xls
XLS spreadsheet 277 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of Equipment
- Solicitation number
- FA8223-10-R-0130
About this file
Updated Contractor Questions/Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Definitization | ||||||||
| Technical | ||||||||
| Date | ||||||||
| Request | Document/PAGE | PARAGRAPH | LINE | Questions | Date | |||
| Responded | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |||||||
| 1 | 7-Jan-10 | CDRL B004 (Waiver request) is quoted in PWS 1.2.3 for MEL waivers to be approved by the PO/QAR. 1) Does the Government really intend for the contractor to go through the CDRL submission process in order to have the local PO/QAR approve a MEL waiver, normally done on the spot (or nearly so) in real time? 2) Note that waiver requests are for permanent non-compliance, whereas Requests for Deviation (DI-CMAN-80640C) is for a temporary condition (“specific number of units for a specified period of time”). | 14-May-10 | Yes, the government requires a formal CDRL request for waiver submitted to the PCO, the realtime approval will be verbal. | ||||
| 2 | 7-Jan-10 | CDRL B004 is also quoted in PWS Section 1.1.3.5 (5th bullet) as the means by which a waiver would be granted by the Government for a non-qualified student to enter a replacement course. If the contractor is to generate the waiver request, by what means, and with what timeliness will the contractor know without uncertainty that a student in not qualified for a replacement course? | 14-May-10 | Yes, the government requires a formal CDRL request for waiver submitted to the PCO, the realtime approval will be verbal. | ||||
| 3 | 7-Jan-10 | PWS Section 5.3.1, IMP Table - 3.6 Systems Engineering Management includes a SEMS. By current management practices, the SEMS has been replaced by the tabular IMP. The data in a SEMS would normally be expanded into IMP Events, Accomplishments, Criteria table as is required for IMP Section 2. Is it reasonable to cross reference SEMS events (e.g., for design reviews, test completions, audits) to the corresponding item in IMP Section 2? | 14-May-10 | Yes this is reasonable. | ||||
| 4 | 7-Jan-10 | Section L, Paragraph 3.1, Page 9 of 12 states “A draft IMP shall be provided IAW the CDRL requirement A007 as Appendix B addressing the requirements of PWS section 5.3.1.” What is the relationship between the IMP, CDRL A008 and the Management Plan? |
a. Note PWS Section 5.3.1, IMP Table: Section 3.20 (the Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Control Program), references PWS Paragraph 10.1 where the same plan is called for as part of CDRL A008.
| b. Note the (unnumbered) 1423 sheet refers to a four part management plan that includes the Training, HR, Transition and relocation plans listed in Table 5.3.1- 1 as part of the IMP. | 14-May-10 | Added A008 to PWS Para 5.3.1 (IMP) for inclusion of the additional plans to Appendix B (Draft IMP). Added A008 to Section L Instructions for delivery of Appendix B. The NEED TO DISCUSS WITH RICHARD | |||
| 5 | 7-Jan-10 | PWS Annex C, Table C-5, item 5B: does “Frame 2 Capacity” equate to polygons per channel or some other non-product specific measure of performance? | 14-May-10 | The Frame 2 is referring to the division within the IG. The Table C-5 item 5B specifies 20,000 faces or polygons at 60 Hz which is a total of 4000 face or polygons times 5 channels. | |
| 6 | 21-Jan-10 | DRFP Section B – CLIN 1028 heading states “Yokota” in place of “Ramstein”. | 14-May-10 | Updated in Draft RFP posted 23 Mar 2010 | |
| 7 | 21-Jan-10 | DRFP Section B – CLIN 1029 there is a discrepancy between the CLIN heading and CLIN text description; “Remote Site TBD Operations” vs. “ Option CLIN – C-130 ATS DMO Support” | 14-May-10 | Updated in Draft RFP posted 23 Mar 2010 | |
| 8 | 21-Jan-10 | DRFP Section B – CLINs 1043 & 1044 are duplicates titled “Relocation of WST in excess of 50 miles.” | 14-May-10 | Updated in Draft RFP posted 23 Mar 2010 | |
| 9 | 21-Jan-10 | DRFP Section B – CLINs 2062 & 2063 are duplicates titled “Option CLIN - Elmendorf Operations” | 14-May-10 | Updated in Draft RFP posted 23 Mar 2010 | |
| 10 | 21-Jan-10 | PWS paragraph 2.2, titled Training Management System, states: The current TMS will be provided as GFE. However, it does not currently have the capability to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems. The expectation is that capability be added to the TMS. In our experience the courseware and authoring system interface and interact with the Learning Management System (LMS). Please clarify if the term “TMS” stated above is used in lieu of LMS? Is there an existing LMS and if so, is it Government-owned? | 14-May-10 | No, TMS is not used in lieu of LMS. There is no LMS currently in place. | |
| 11 | 21-Jan-10 | Throughout the PWS, there are references to “CDRL C012”. However, CDRL C012 it is not listed in paragraph 2.1.7.5, titled Data Deliverables | 14-May-10 | References to CDRL C012 have removed from the PWS. | |
| 12 | 23-Mar-10 | The following CLINs reflect the period of performance as 1 Jan 2015 – 31 Dec 2015 but all other 7000 series CLINs reflect a period of performance of 1 Jan 2017 – 31 Dec 2017. Could the Government please clarify? CLIN 7002, 7003, 7005, 7006, 7017, 7043 | 14-May-10 | Updated in Solicitation Dated 6 May 2010 | |
| 13 | 23-Mar-10 | CLIN 8062 reflects a period of performance of 1 Jan 2015 – 31 Dec 2015 but all other 8000 series CLINs reflect a period of performance of 1 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2018. Could the Government please clarify? | 14-May-10 | Updated in Solicitation Dated 6 May 2010 | |
| 14 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference CLIN price summary worksheet and Section B: CLIN price summary file, under FTU CLIN Tab, the Period of Performance (POP) for Dobbins FTU, CLIN X017 is listed as FY10-FY14 however both the CLIN price summary worksheet and Section B show this CLIN active through the end of the contract, Dec 2018. Would the Government please clarify the POP for Dobbins FTU? | 14-May-10 | The POP for Dobbins FTU was updated in the RFP posted 6 May 10 to read Op yr 1-8 and eliminated FY10-14. | |
| 15 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference CLIN price summary worksheet and Section B. Would the Government please clarify if Dobbins ARB continuation training (AMP) under CLIN price summary file, CT CLINs tab should be priced under CLIN X018 or X019? | 14-May-10 | The POP for Dobbins CT was updated in the RFP posted 6 may 10 o reflect H2 for Op yr 1-6 and AMP Op Yr 7-8. | |
| 16 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference Section L, titled Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 1.5 titled Organization, page 298, reads: For digital files: |
e. Submit any Microsoft Project files in Microsoft Project 2003. There are no special “save” functions required for later versions of Project.”
However, item 7 reads”
| “7. As an exception, the IMS full Microsoft Project file shall be in the native Microsoft Project 2007 “.mpp” format or other compatible software.”. Can the Government please provide clarification regarding the version of Microsoft Project to be used when submitting any Microsoft Project files? | 14-May-10 | The RFP posted 23 March 2010 contained instructions for use of MS Project 2007. | |||
| 17 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference Section L, titled Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 4.1.1 titled Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) (Section 3a), page 305, reads:“The offeror has discretion in determining the most beneficial mix and quantity of contracts by prime offeror, key partners, or subcontractors covering as many of these elements as is practical. A minimum of five (5) contracts shall be for the prime offeror and if less than ten (10) relevant contracts are submitted, the contractor shall specifically state and acknowledge its number is less than the ten (10) it could submit.”. | |||
| Given the number of contracts required to be submitted by the prime, this limits the number of contracts that can be submitted by key partners and subcontractors. Would the Government consider reducing the minimum contracts submission (5) requirement for the prime to allow key partners and subcontractors to submit a sufficient number to support evaluation of their past performance or reduce the number of contracts required to be submitted by the prime? | 14-May-10 | The government will post the updated requirement of prime past performance contracts to be submitted with PPIS IAW Section L Para 4.1.1. VALIDATE ANSWER | |||
| 18 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference PWS paragraph 0.3, titled Applicable Documents, reads: “The contractor shall utilize the following documents referenced herein as guides in performance of specific tasks under this PWS (each is referenced in the applicable PWS paragraph):” However, the following documents are referenced in the PWS and not listed in Table 0.3-1 titled “Referenced Government Documents”. DOD 8570.01-M AFI 33-200DODI 8510.01 AFI 33-210 | |||
| DODI 8500.2 T.O. 00-20-1. Please clarify by adding these documents to the list of Applicable Documents or by deleting the subject documents from the applicable PWS paragraph(s). | 14-May-10 | The PWS was updated to include the referenced documents and included in the RFP posted 6 May 10. | |||
| 19 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference PWS paragraph 1.4, titled “Curriculum Requirements” reads: “The contractor shall perform the following tasks, at a minimum, for new or modified courseware: j. Demonstrate that developed courseware runs successfully on a sponsor-designated SCORM conformant LMS/LCMS. m. Provide the capability to automate configuration management functions (versioning and history). The LCMS, once implemented by the contractor, will provide this feature.” Item j. indicates the sponsor will provide a SCORM conformant LMS/LCMS. However, item m. makes reference to the contractor implementing a LCMS. Can the Government please provide clarification regarding the use of the term “sponsor” and who will be responsible for providing an LMS/LCMS? | 14-May-10 | PWS para 1.4 (j) was re-worded to remove the word sponsor and was posted with the Draft RFP on 23 March 2010. | |
| 20 | 23-Mar-10 | Reference PWS Paragraph 2.1.1.1, titled TSSC Functions, sub-item “w”, page 20, reads: “ w. Maintain and prevent obsolescence issues with Information Technology at all ATS locations, Government program management staff (AMC/A3TR/A and AFMC/SPO), AMCAOS Detachment 3, and 714TRS. This shall include compatible OS systems for courseware review and other contractor to Government electronic communications.”. Can the Government please provide a list of information technology equipment the contractor will be responsible for at each of the referenced ATS locations? | 14-May-10 | The list of IT equipment by site is available in the library within each TMS/LAN drawing by site and the IT equipment not listed on the drawings has been attached to attachment 6. | |
| 21 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 2.1.8.2, titled Responsibility for Inspection, reads: “The contractor shall be responsible for planning, conducting, and successfully completing all tests, inspections, and evaluations necessary to fulfill the requirements of this specification. (CDRL B021)” Can the Government please clarify the reference to “… this specification.”? | 14-May-10 | PWS para 2.1.8.2 was clarified. | |
| 22 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 2.2, titled Training Management System, reads: “The current TMS will be provided as GFE. However, it does not currently have the capability to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems. The expectation is that capability be added to the TMS.” Question: Typically, it is the Learning Management System (LMS) that interacts with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems versus a TMS. Can the Government clarify the requirement for the contractor to provide the capability for the TMS to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems? | 14-May-10 | The current TMS consists of several systems. However, an LMS/LCMS capability does not currently exist. We envision an LMS/LCMS (or like capability) be added to the overall TMS under the new contract. That will provide the capability for the TMS to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems. | |
| 23 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 4.1, titled Scope, second paragraph, third sentence, reads: “ The contractor shall propose an approach detailing how they will work as a directed sub-contractor on an aircraft contract.” Can the Government clarify the requirement for the contractor to work as a directed sub-contractor on an aircraft contract? | 14-May-10 | PWS para 4.1 pg was clairified. | |
| 24 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 4.1.1.1, titled “Visual System Upgrade reads: “When this option modification is exercised by the Government, the contractor shall upgrade image generators, projection systems, and provide TSSC database generation system tools in accordance with Annex C.” However, Annex C, paragraph 2.3 reads: |
“2.3 The VSR Database and Image Generator upgrades will produce improved scene density and eliminate calligraphic lights. Therefore, a display upgrade is required.”
| Can the Government clarify the requirement to provide a display upgrade? | 14-May-10 | PWS Annex C para 2.3 has been updated. | |||
| 25 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 4.1.1.1, titled Visual System Upgrade, reads: “When this option modification is exercised by the Government, the contractor shall upgrade image generators, projection systems, and provide TSSC database generation system tools in accordance with Annex C.” Paragraph 4.2, titled General Modification Requirements, and its subparagraphs, addresses all of the requirements associated with a modification. However, none of the subparagraphs make specific reference to the visual system upgrade modification except for paragraph 4.4. titled Documentation, which states: “The modification Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) in Table 2.1.7.5-1 includes the preliminary data items in support of the C-130 ATS II Visual Modification.” Can the Government please clarify the requirement to specifically address the visual system upgrade when providing a response to the requirements contained in paragraphs 4.2 through 4.6? | 14-May-10 | PWS para 4.4. was clarified. | |
| 26 | 23-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 4.4, titled Documentation, second to last sentence, reads: “The Contractor shall deliver the following data items to the Government in accordance with the initial delivery and frequency outlined in Table 2.1.7.5.-1.” The list of data items to be delivered was not provided. Can the Government please provide the data items? | 14-May-10 | A001, A002, B001 thru B021 if applicable. PWS paragraph 4.4 will be updated to reflect this. | |
| 27 | 25-Mar-10 | Question: Would the Government please provide the Section L Attachments in MS WORD? Currently these files are in Adobe Acrobat and cannot be filled in/modified. | 14-May-10 | The contract writing system automatically posts all documents in an Adobe format. A "Word" copy will be post on FBO as requested. | |
| 28 | 25-Mar-10 | PWS paragraph 2.1.7.5 list the following CDRLS |
C001 Training Situation Document (Courseware ISD) DI-SESS-81517B C002 Instructional Performance Requirements (Courseware ISD Instructor) DI-SESS-81518B C003 Instructional Media Requirements Document DI-SESS-81519B C004 Instructional Media Design Package (Courseware Design Documentation) DI-SESS-81520B C005 Training Program Structure Document (ISD Resources) DI-SESS-81521B NOT 1/T However, paragraphs 13.4.1 – 13.4.4 reference CDRL C007 and C010.
| These CDRLs are not listed on the master CDRL list. Please Clarify. | 14-May-10 | C006 and C007 will be added to Table 2.1.7.5-1. PWS paragraph 13.4 and its sub-paragraphs will be updated to reflect this. | |||
| 29 | 25-Mar-10 | Section L states that the PPIS (Attachment L-1) will be used to submit information. Section L also states that the hard copies of the pages generated from the past performance information tool (i.e. MS Access) are to be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume. | |||
| Does the Government want hard copies of both means of reporting information? | 14-May-10 | Section L and Attachment 1 have been clarified. | |||
| 30 | 25-Mar-10 | Does the Government intend to limit the use of CBA pricing in accordance with FAR 22.1002-3 including flatlining in the out years to just the Section J Attachment 3 Fixed rate table, OR should the labor rates used to establish the prices for all proposal CLINs listed in Atch4CLINSummary17Mar10.xlsx and Section B also be accordance with FAR 22.1002-3 including flatlining in the out years, as well? | 14-May-10 | Yes, Please see updated RFP FA8223-10-R-0130 Section L page 303 | |
| 31 | 26-Mar-10 | There was not any Direct language regarding the use of CBAs instead of WDs. Please clarify. | 14-May-10 | Please see updated RFP FA8223-10-R-0130 Section L page 303 | |
| 32 | 26-Mar-10 | Why is there more SCA clauses relating back to 22.106 description, but no expanisn direclty basck to 22.1002? Please Clarify. | 14-May-10 | There is a reference to FAR 22.1002 on page 302. Clauses relating to FAR 22. 1002 are perscribed in FAR 22.1006 and are therefore listed on page 278 of the RFP. | |
| 33 | 28-Apr-10 | In attachment 7, Rev History I came across what I assume to be the previous contract # F42630-99-C-0195. Is this the follow on for that contract? | 14-May-10 | Attachment 7 is the Logistics Support package. This is a follow on for the FA8223-10-C-0005 and previously F42630-99-C-0195. | |
| 34 | 28-Apr-10 | In FPDS contract # F42630-99-C-0195 is reported to be over 400m, assuming the new contract is the follow on, is it safe to assume that the new contract is going to have a similar value range? | 14-May-10 | Yes it will be consistant with the previous contract based on fluctuations in student throughput, training requirements, and inflation. | |
| 35 | 28-Apr-10 | When researching contract # F42630-99-C-0195 in FBO, I found an award notice from 2003 indicating a total value of around $96,000, is this the value of one task order? | 14-May-10 | This is a C type contract there are no task orders on this contract. Please clarify your questions. | |
| 36 | 18-May-10 | Section I includes FAR Clause 5352.209.9002, titled Organizational Conflict of Interest. Given the C-130 is a mature platform that has been in existence for many years can the Government please clarify the applicability of this clause to this procurement? | 19-May-10 | Government response,clause have been removed. | |
| 37 | 18-May-10 | In Section B the CLINs go from 3049 titled “Option CLIN - Visual System Upgrade – Materials” to CLIN 3051 titled “Option CLIN - Pope Maintenance, Logistics and Site Management.” However, Attachment 4 titled “CLIN Price Summary Worksheet for the C-130 ATS Contract” identifies a CLIN 3050 titled “OPTION CLIN – Ramp-up at Pope MOB.” | |||
| Can the Government please provide clarification? | 19-May-10 | 1050 and 2050 should be reserved, 3050 should be the option CLIN because the PWS calls for the Pope to operate Op yr 3 – 8, therefore, Option CLIN 3050 has been added into RFP. | |||
| 38 | 18-May-10 | Annex C, PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR THE VISUAL SYSTEM REPLACEMENT FOR THE C130E/H/AMP AIRCREW TRAINING SYSTEM states: |
“There are ten (10) C-130 WSTs in varying configurations. All are subject to this modification.” However there are six visual upgrade CLINS (x048).
| Is it the Government’s intent to use the same CLIN to order multiple visual upgrades? Please clarify? | 19-May-10 | It is the government's intent to utilize X048 subCLINs to excerise multiple visual upgrades. | |
| 39 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraph 1.2.3, titled Determination of ATD Capability for Scheduled Missions, states; |
“Unscheduled maintenance shall be documented in the monthly field service report (CDRL A011). However, CDRL A011 is the 50/50 Requirements Report.
| Can the Government please provide the correct CDRL for a Field Service Report? | 19-May-10 | PWS para 1.2.3 should use CDRL A004 Status Report, not A011. The reference has been clarified. | |
| 40 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraph 1.4, titled Curriculum Requirements makes reference to AETCI 36-2209 however this instruction is not listed as a referenced document in Table 0.3-1 or Table 0.3-2. | |
| Can the Government please add this instruction to the list of referenced documents? | 19-May-10 | Added AETCI 36-2209 to Table 0.3.2 | |
| 41 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraphs 13.4.2, 13.4.3, and 13.4.4 make reference to CDRL A010. However, PWS paragraph 2.1.7.5, titled Data Deliverables, Table 2.1.7.5-1 does not list CDRL C010 nor was it provided as part of Exhibit A to the RFP. | |
| Can the Government please add the above referenced CDRL to Table 2.1.7.5-1 and provide the CDRL? | 19-May-10 | PWS para 13.4.2 - 13.4.4 is now clarified to show CDRL C007, which has also been added to Table 2.1.7.5-1 | |
| 42 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraph 2.1.12, titled Mobility Air Forces (MAF) Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) Technical Support mandates compliance with Air Force System Security Instruction (AFSSI) 7700 and AFSSI 7702 however neither instruction is identified in Table 0.3-1 or Table 0.3-2. | |
| Can the Government please add the above referenced instructions to the list of referenced documents? | 19-May-10 | PWS Table 0.3.2 has been clarified to include AFSSI 7700 and 7702 | |
| 43 | 18-May-10 | PWS Paragraph 2.1.1.1, titled TSSC Functions, sub-item “w”, page 21, reads: |
“ w. Maintain and prevent obsolescence issues with Information Technology at all ATS locations, Government program management staff (AMC/A3TR/A and AFMC/SPO), AMCAOS Detachment 3, and 714TRS. This shall include compatible OS systems for courseware review and other contractor to Government electronic communications.”
| Can the Government please provide a list of information technology equipment the contractor will be responsible for at each of the referenced ATS locations? | 19-May-10 | The IT equipment for each site is included on the TMS/LAN drawing and a list of IT equipment not on the drawing is on Attachment 6 posted 17 May 10 | |
| 44 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraph 2.2, titled Training Management System, states: |
“The current TMS will be provided as GFE. However, it does not currently have the capability to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems. The expectation is that capability be added to the TMS.” Typically, it is the Learning Management System (LMS) that interacts with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems versus a TMS.
| Can the Government clarify the requirement for the contractor to provide the capability for the TMS to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems? | 19-May-10 | The current TMS consists of several systems. However, an LMS/LCMS capability does not currently exist. Government envision an LMS/LCMS (or like capability) be added to the overall TMS under the new contract. That will provide the capability for the TMS to interact with automated courseware and courseware authoring systems. | |
| 45 | 18-May-10 | PWS, ANNEX C, page 77, paragraph titled Scope, states: |
“This Performance Specification establishes the performance requirements for the upgraded visual system, referred to as Visual System Replacement (VSR), for the C-130E/H/AMP Aircrew Training System (ATS) Weapon System Trainers (WSTs). The contractor shall provide a detailed Performance Work Statement (PWS) as part of the proposal submission. There are ten (10) C-130 WSTs in varying configurations. All are subject to this modification.”
Can the Government clarify where in the proposal the Visual System Replacement PWS should be included?
| Can the Government clarify the authorized Visual System Replacement PWS page count? | 19-May-10 | PWS Annex C page 77 has been clarified to remove the submission of an additional PWS. The government expects the detailed VSR approach to be included in the technical proposal within the pre-established page count. | |
| 46 | 18-May-10 | PWS Table 1.1.3.3-1, titled MOB Annual Continuation Training reflects Loadmaster Student throughput for McChord AFB. However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Appendix A, titled Employees represented by IAM & AW District Lodge No. 160, does not provide a classification for Loadmaster Instructors? |
Can the Government clarify the Loadmaster continuation training throughput requirements at McChord AFB?
| Can the Government clarify what CBA job classification would be utilized to satisfy Loadmaster continuation training throughput requirements at McChord AFB? | 19-May-10 | Table 1.1.3.3-1 has been clarified and removed the Loadmaster student throughput. This removes the need for Loadmaster instructors. | |
| 47 | 18-May-10 | PWS Table 1.1.3.3-1, titled MOB Annual Continuation Training reflects Loadmaster Student throughput for Minneapolis. However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Appendix A, titled Employees represented by IAM & AW District Lodge No. 77, does not provide a classification for Loadmaster Instructors? |
Can the Government clarify the Loadmaster continuation training throughput requirements at Minneapolis?
| Can the Government clarify what CBA job classification would be utilized to satisfy Loadmaster continuation training throughput requirements at Minneapolis? | 19-May-10 | Table 1.1.3.3-1 has been clarified and removed the Loadmaster student throughput. This removes the need for Loadmaster instructors. | |||
| 48 | 18-May-10 | PWS paragraph 13.3, titled AMP Transition Training (Op Yr 1), makes reference to Table 1.1.3.5-1. The table reference should be 1.1.3.6-1. | 19-May-10 | PWS para 13.3 has been clarified the reference to Table 1.1.3.6-1 | |
| 49 | 20-May-10 | Section L, paragraph 1.5 of the RFP states that “scanned pages are not acceptable.” However, many of the Section J attachments provided by the Government (e.g., the CBAs) are in scanned image form. Please advise if it is not acceptable to provide these particular documents back to the Government in the same format as we received. | 19-May-10 | We can receive scanned pages, we made the appropriate changes in section L. | |
| 50 | 26-May-10 | Section L, Section 3b, Paragraph 4.1, states “The spreadsheet is to capture the total scope of work that the Offeror has ongoing or completed in the last three (3) years.” Given the significant amount of business annually across a very large number of programs, the spreadsheet would be very comprehensive and unwieldy.Would the Government consider limiting the contents of the spreadsheet to those programs provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume? | 19-May-10 | Section L has been clarified to show that the spreadsheet should be populated with only the PPI that is being submitted in the Past Performance Volume. | |
| 51 | 26-May-10 | The RFP included a Collective Bargaining Unit Agreement between CAE Inc. and District Lodge No. 77 (Effective January 1, 2010 through August 20, 2010) that specifically covers all full-time and regular part-time Flight Crew Instructors on the C-130 Program at the Minnesota Air National Guard facility. The RFP also included a Collective Bargaining Unit Agreement between Lockheed Martin Readiness and Stability Operations and District Lodge No. 77 (Effective August 16, 2008 through August 20, 2010) that specifically covers all full-time and regular part-time Flight Crew Instructors on the C-130 Program at the Minnesota Air National Guard facility. Can the Government clarify which CBA is binding and in force? | 19-May-10 | Waiting on additional information, will update. | |
| 52 | 26-May-10 | The RFP cover page, SF1447, Block 9, states the proposal due date and time as 21 Jun 2010, 12:00 PM. However, Section L, page 297 states the proposal is due NLT 4:00 p.m. Mountain time. Please clarify? | 19-May-10 | Clarified Section L to match SF 1447 Block 9. | |
| 53 | 26-May-10 | Can the government define what airfields are included in each of the following databases/gaming areas: |
1 MA1 – Little Rock
2 MA2 – SW USA
| 3 MA3 – Northern Afghanistan | 19-May-10 | Afghan VDBDD is document number DBGS-VDBDD-001, Visual Data Base Description Document for Little Rock is document C130-ATS-LRE-DOB2-VDBDD, Visual Data Base Description Document for SW USA is document MC-130H-MRD-DBASE-VDBDD-001. | |||
| 54 | 26-May-10 | PWS paragraph 3.3, titled DoD Item Unique Identification (IUID) or DoD-recognized equivalent, states | |||
| “ The contractor shall maintain all IUID markings in accordance with currently existing DFARS 252.211.7003 and MIL-STD-130M and described in the ILSP.” In addition, the paragraph references CDRL A007 and A008. Neither CDRL A007 nor CDRL A008 makes any reference to the ILSP. However, CDRL A008 does make reference to DoD Item Unique Marking Plan. Should the reference to the ILSP be changed to read DoD Item Unique Marking Plan and the reference to CDRL A007 be deleted? | 19-May-10 | Updated CDRL A007 to read Integrated Logistics Support Plan instead of Contractor Logistics Support Plan. | |||
| 55 | 26-May-10 | CDRL B004 references DI-CMAN-80641B however, that DiD has been cancelled. Can the Government provide clarification regarding the appropriate DiD to utilize? | 19-May-10 | The DID should be DI-SESS-81732 which is active. Clarified the DID on CDRL B004. | |
| 56 | 26-May-10 | PWS paragraph 12.1 titled Initial Program Ramp Up, item g, states “g. Accomplish Third party AS 9100 Certification” Is it the Government’s intent that this be completed during the 90-day transition period? Has the Government negotiated with the incumbent contractor to allow the successful offeror to access to program artifacts, implement processes/process changes, and allow a 3rd party registrar insight into the program, each of which will be required to obtain certification? | 19-May-10 | Clarified PWS Paragraph 12.1 |
No.
| 57 | 26-May-10 | PWS paragraph 11.1, titled Main Operating Base (MOB) and Learning Centers makes reference to CDRL A007. Should this be A008, which contains the requirement for a Relocation Plan? | 19-May-10 | Updated the PWS to clarify CDRL A008 instead of A007. |
| 58 | 26-May-10 | CDRL B017, titled Air Force Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR), states “TM-86-01H/T is appended to the CDRL.” However, TM-86-01H/T was not provided. Can the Government provide TM-86-01H/T ? | 19-May-10 | “TM-86-01H/T is appended to the CDRL.” will be deleted from CDRL B017. As a guide, TM-86-01H will be used as it without any tailoring. |
| 59 | 26-May-10 | PWS paragraph 4.2.7.1, titled Test Plan states. “The Contractor shall develop a Test Plan (CDRL B020) prior to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR)…” The CDRL referenced is for Test Procedures, not a Test Plan. CDRL A007 does require submission of a Test and Evaluation Program Plan (TEPP)(Master Test Plan). Can the Government clarify the Test Plan CDRL reference in paragraph 4.2.7.1? | 19-May-10 | PWS paragraph 4.2.7.1, titled Test Plan should state. “The Contractor shall develop a Test and Evaluation Program Plan (Master Test Plan) as part of the Integrated Master Plan (CDRL A007) prior to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR)…” |
| 60 | 26-May-10 | According to the guidance provided in Section L, paragraph 2.3.3, item 1, Section B CLINs for site ramp up and for maintenance, logistics support, and site management at Elmendorf, Nashville, Cheyenne, and Niagara are included in the Total Evaluated Price, as is CLIN XX50 titled Option CLIN – Ramp-Up at Pope Main Operating Base (MOB). However, CLIN XX51 for maintenance, logistics support, and site management at Pope is not included. Can the government provide clarification regarding CLIN XX51 inclusion in the TEP? | 19-May-10 | Section L para 2.3.3 number 1 has been clarified to include XX51. |
| 61 | 26-May-10 | With the 17 May 2010 release of the PWS, paragraph 5.4.4.4 titled Base Supply, was changed to read “The contractor shall only utilize the base supply system, with government approval, if the contractor cannot source a part needed for maintenance.” This change created a conflict with the Government provided Base Support Agreement (dated 5 Jun 09) which states: |
| Can the Government clarify the Base Supply support for the FuTs that will be available to the successful offeror ? | 19-May-10 | Attachment 5, the BSA, has been clarified in regards to the use of Base Supply | |||
| 62 | 26-May-10 | Q&A response indicated that for CLIN X048 it was the Government’s intent to utilize X048 sub-CLINs to exercise multiple visual upgrades. However, CLIN X048 does not have sub-CLINs. Please clarify. | 19-May-10 | Two subCLINs: |
X048AA 1 lot prototype X048AB 9 lots production
Will be updated RFP and posted.
| 63 | 26-May-10 | CLIN X048 indicate the contractor is to install, integrate, and test the visual modification IAW PWS Sections 4, 9, and 10. PWS paragraph 4.1.1.1 states: “The contractor shall upgrade image generators, projection systems, and provide TSSC database generation system tools in accordance with Annex C.” In what CLIN should costs be applied for database modifications, if necessary? In what CLIN should costs be applied for any non-recurring engineering associated with the visual system upgrade? | 19-May-10 | PWS Para 4.1.1 is clarified to include database modifications. Use CLIN XX48. |
| 64 | 1-Jun-10 | Was there any type of Summary of Changes put together on Solicitation FA8223-10-R-0130, Amendment 0002 so that offerors can easily understand what changed? If so, can that be shared with all offerors? | 3-Jun-10 | No there was no summary of changes put together because the amendment was minor. Changed delivery time of proposal on Page 297 from 4:00 PM to 12:00 PM. |
| 65 | 3-Jun-11 | The C-130 RFP states that our Past Performance Volume is due 30 days post RFP. With release of the RFP on May 6th, our calculation shows that the thirty days would be Saturday June 5th. Will you accept delivery our PP volume on Monday June 7? Or, should we plan on submitting a day early on Friday June 4th? | 3-Jun-10 | Delivery of PP will be accepted on or before 7 June 2010 at 10 AM Mtn Standard Time |
| 66 | 9-Jun-10 | Would the Government please provide the specific Foreign Military Sales student throughput requirement? | 10-Jun-10 | There is not a specific throughput because the training occurs in the excess capacity of the ATS and shall not displace USAF students. It should be expected to train 10-20 crews (primarily refresher training). |
| 67 | 9-Jun-10 | Would the Government clarify what is to be priced in CLIN XX66? | 10-Jun-10 | The PWS clarification above should help answer this question. This will be posted on FBO. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .